IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 5245 Section 4.1.2.1, ice-happy-eyeballs and ICE bis

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sat, 03 August 2013 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC58F11E80F6 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 23:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.471
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MxDHamcL7A6p for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 23:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB1411E80F7 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 23:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hj13so108992wib.17 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 23:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=oPsXUWSev4srctp8ntCy8vpEHPudO3MIy5gd4clocgc=; b=SYsMobOookVL/sggmNtNlFbb26fSifXNfRtUuqXVU8JMkkAKhQ1sHfCpGge64hCzyI xOO9FNChqkYnfTZoN2gx/Bc4xmHK7HP+o7nkSWEk+eTZLKrsLNq0Wx3yuoWQZbfdEZCf iZYsLoXhePSwnnsIHHl38MiFK+tGN2G2QCiGfaOopPVbB4MxvMNg7Ite0DM4xzXW/ZcN MJ9bLvATQG9+r2IK+aAtTmMcW2f/leB21my34TV1SpVYHiPyN/haFksHRHzS/vSX3fzO Eexjh54OTvrIk2kpFQkKjViNFEh22Db0BcVmljoiG/3cHXANStFY+y5/g97GKkEVFBnP K+lg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.39.236 with SMTP id s12mr1047175wik.14.1375512476601; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 23:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.60.46 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 23:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A1900AB72@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <CABkgnnVEzTABa4-YZWgBwiEBt6DXCr5ugHY0KOfkw-x5Y91Lyw@mail.gmail.com> <BLU169-W25092106DE55365B8C883893570@phx.gbl> <51F8D6B6.6080109@ericsson.com> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A19008F0E@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <04179E80-2AF6-4150-B083-01289438BC0A@vidyo.com> <51F933A8.2060504@ericsson.com> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A1900AB72@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 08:47:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWcFZTsKaW3+htvfJtkbB9K7s=mEeasYCgDNiHv_7PC9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RFC 5245 Section 4.1.2.1, ice-happy-eyeballs and ICE bis
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 06:48:03 -0000

On 2 August 2013 17:11, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <tireddy@cisco.com> wrote:
> a.  If the first 'N' candidates are of the same IP address family, then the highest-priority candidate of the other address family is promoted to position 'N' in the list.
>
> b.  Step b is repeated for rest of candidates. This is continued until all candidates with the preferred address family are exhausted.
>
> This would work even when policy table is modified such that IPv4 addresses have higher precedence than IPv6 using DHCP http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-10.

I'm not sure that your specific formulation of the algorithm makes
sense (reread step b), but I think that the general principle you use
in the draft (as you explained in the WG meeting) is certainly a
viable option.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email